Charles Francis Hockett (January 17, 1916 – November 3, 2000) was an Americanlinguist who developed many influential ideas in American structuralist linguistics. He represents the post-Bloomfieldian phase of structuralism often referred to as "distributionalism" or "taxonomic structuralism". His academic career spanned over half a century at Cornell and Rice universities.

Hockett began his teaching career in 1946 as an assistant professor of linguistics in the Division of Modern Languages at Cornell University where he was responsible for directing the Chinese language program. In 1957, Hockett became a member of Cornell's anthropology department and continued to teach anthropology and linguistics until he retired to emeritus status in 1982. In 1986, he took up an adjunct post at Rice University in Houston, Texas, where he remained active until his death in 2000.

Hockett and his wife Shirley were vital leaders in the development of the Cayuga Chamber Orchestra in Ithaca, New York. In appreciation of the Hocketts' hard work and dedication to the Ithaca community, Ithaca College established the Charles F. Hockett Music Scholarship, the Shirley and Chas Hockett Chamber Music Concert Series, and the Hockett Family Recital Hall.

In his "Note on Structure" he argues that linguistics can be seen as a game and as a science. A linguist as player has a freedom for experimentation on all the utterances of a language, but no criterion to compare his analysis with other linguists. Late in his career, he was known for his stinging criticism of Chomskyan linguistics.

One of Hockett’s most important contributions was his development of the design-feature approach to comparative linguistics where he attempted to distinguish the similarities and differences among animal communication systems and human language.

Hockett initially developed seven features which were published in the 1959 paper “Animal ‘Languages’ and Human Language.” However, after many revisions, he settled on 13 design-features which can be found in the Scientific American article “The Origin of Speech.”

Hockett argued that while every communication system has some of the 13 design features, only human, spoken language has all 13 features. In turn, this differentiates human spoken language from animal communication and other human communication systems such as written language.

Vocal-Auditory Channel: Much of human language is performed using the vocal tract and auditory channel. Hockett viewed this as an advantage for human primates because it allowed for the ability to participate in other activities while simultaneously communicating through spoken language.

Duality of patterning: Meaningless phonic segments (phonemes) are combined to make meaningful words, which in turn are combined again to make sentences.

While Hockett believed that all communication systems, animal and human alike, share many of these features, only human language contains all of the 13 design features. Additionally, traditional transmission, and duality of patterning are key to human language.

Hockett's design features and their implications for human language[edit]

Hockett suggests that the importance of a vocal-auditory channel lies in the fact that the animal can communicate while also performing other tasks, such as eating, or using tools.

Broadcast Transmission and Directional Reception: An auditory|audible human language signal is sent out in all directions, but is perceived in a limited direction. For example, humans are more proficient in determining the location of a sound source when the sound is projecting directly in front of them as opposed to a sound source projected directly behind them.

Rapid Fading of a signal in human communication differs from such things as animal tracks and written language because an utterance does not continue to exist after it has been broadcast. With this in mind, it is important to note that Hockett viewed spoken language as the primary concern for investigation. Written language was seen as being secondary due to its recent evolution in culture.

Interchangeability represents a human's ability to act out or reproduce any linguistic message that they are able to comprehend. This differs from many animal communication systems, particularly in regards to mating. For example, humans have the ability to say and do anything that they feel may benefit them in attracting a mate. Sticklebacks on the other hand have different male and female courtship motions; a male cannot replicate a female's motions and vice versa.

Total Feedback is important in differentiating a human's ability to internalize their own productions of speech and behavior. This design-feature incorporates the idea that humans have insight into their actions.

Specialization is apparent in the anatomy of human speech organs and our ability to exhibit some control over these organs. For example, a key assumption in the evolution of language is that the descent of the larynx has allowed humans to produce speech sounds. Additionally, in terms of control, humans are generally able to control the movements of their tongue and mouth. Dogs however, do not have control over these organs. When dogs pant they are communicating a signal, but the panting is an uncontrollable response reflex of being hot [1].

Semanticity: A specific signal can be matched with a specific meaning within a particular language system. For example, all people that understand English have the ability to make a connection between a specific word and what that word represents or refers to. (Hockett notes that gibbons also show semanticity in their signals, however their calls are far more broad than human language.)

Arbitrariness within human language suggests that there is no direct connection between the type of signal (word) and what is being referenced. For example, an animal as large as a cow can be referred to by a very short word Archived October 27, 2009 at the Wayback Machine.

Discreteness: Each basic unit of speech can be categorized and is distinct from other categories. In human language there are only a small set of sound ranges that are used and the differences between these bits of sound are absolute. In contrast, the waggle dance of honeybees is continuous.

Displacement refers to the human language system's ability to communicate about things that are not present spatially, temporally, or realistically. For example, humans have the ability to communicate about unicorns and outer space.

Productivity: human language is open and productive in the sense that humans have the ability to say things that have never before been spoken or heard. In contrast, apes such as the gibbon have a closed communication system because all of their vocal sounds are part of a finite repertoire of familiar calls.

Duality of patterning: Humans have the ability to recombine a finite set of phonemes to create an infinite number of words, which in turn can be combined to make an unlimited number of different sentences.

Foraging honeybees communicate with other members of their hive when they have discovered a relevant source of pollen, nectar, or water. In an effort to convey information about the location and distance of such resources, honeybees participate in a particular figure-eight dance known as the waggle dance.

In Hockett's "The Origin of Speech", he determined that the honeybee communication system of the waggle dance holds the following design features:

Broadcast Transmission and Directional Reception – Through the use of this dance, honeybees are able to send out a signal that informs other members of the hive as to what direction the source of food, or water can be located.

Semanticity – Evidence that the specific signals of a communication system can be matched with specific meanings is apparent because other members of the hive are able to locate the food source after a performance of the waggle dance.

Displacement – Demonstrated in the foraging honeybees' ability to communicate about a resource that is not currently present within the hive.

Gibbons are small apes in the family Hylobatidae. While gibbons share the same kingdom, phylum, class, and order of humans and are relatively close to man, Hockett distinguishes between the gibbon communication system and human language by noting that gibbons are devoid of the last four design features.

Displacement, according to Hockett, appears to be lacking in the vocal signaling of apes.

Productivity does not exist among gibbons because if any vocal sound is produced, it is one of a finite set of repetitive and familiar calls.

Hockett supports the idea that humans learn language extra genetically through the process of traditional transmission. Hockett distinguishes gibbons from humans by stating that despite any similarities in communication among a species of apes, one cannot attribute these similarities to acquisition through the teaching and learning (traditional transmission) of signals; the only explanation must be a genetic basis.

Finally, duality of patterning explains a human's ability to create multiple meanings from somewhat meaningless sounds. For example, the sounds /t/, /a/, /c/ can be used to create the words "cat", "tack", and "act". Hockett states that no other Hominoid communication system besides human language maintains this ability.

Cognitive scientist and linguist at the University of Sussex Larry Trask (1944–2004) offered an alternative term and definition for number 14, Prevarication:

14. (a) Stimulus Freedom – we can choose to say anything we want or say nothing at all in any given situation

There has since been one more Feature added to the list, by Dr. William Taft Stuart, a director of the Undergraduate Studies program at the University of Maryland: College Park’s Anthropology school, part of the College of Behavioral and Social Sciences. His “extra” Feature is:

17. Grammaticality – a speaker’s sayings conform to the rules of grammar

This follows the definition of Grammar and Syntax, as given by Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary:

1. (a) the way in which linguistic elements (as words) are put together to form constituents (as phrases or clauses) (b) the part of grammar

Relationship between the design features and animal communication[edit]

Additionally, Dr. Stuart defends his postulation with references to famous linguist Noam Chomsky and University of New York psychologist Gary Marcus. Chomsky theorized that humans are unique in the animal world because of their ability to utilize Design Feature 5: Total Feedback, or recursive grammar. This includes being able to correct oneself and insert explanatory or even non sequitur statements into a sentence, without breaking stride, and keeping proper grammar throughout.

While there have been studies attempting to disprove Chomsky, Marcus states that, "An intriguing possibility is that the capacity to recognize recursion might be found only in species that can acquire new patterns of vocalization, for example, songbirds, humans and perhaps some cetaceans." This is in response to a study performed by psychologist Timothy Gentner of the University of California at San Diego. Gentner’s study found that starling songbirds use recursive grammar to identify “odd” statements within a given “song.” However, the study does not necessarily debunk Chomsky’s observation because it has not yet been proven that songbirds have the semantic ability to generalize from patterns.

There is also thought that symbolic thought is necessary for grammar-based speech, and thus Homo Erectus and all preceding “humans” would have been unable to comprehend modern speech. Rather, their utterances would have been halting and even quite confusing to us, today.

Hockett's "design features" of language and other animal communication systems[edit]

The University of Oxford: Phonetics Laboratory Faculty of Linguistics, Philology and Phonetics published the following chart, detailing how Hockett's (and Altmann's) Design Features fit into other forms of communication, in animals:

Falk, Julia S. 2003. "Turn to the history of linguistics : Noam Chomsky and Charles Hockett in the 1960s". Historiographia linguistica (international journal for the history of the language sciences) 30/1-2, pp. 129–185. [2]